Logic of Populism and the Politics of the Strongman, The

The logic of populism is one of exclusion, distinguishing between a “real” and “fake” people. Its logic is similar to fascism’s friend/enemy distinction. However, most scholars contend populism remains distinguishable from fascism to the extent it continues to assert itself democratically rather than through the mobilization of insurrectionary paramilitary forces. While remaining within democratic boundaries, such a logic of exclusion is represented by the figure of the “strongman.” Nevertheless, recent events in the USA show us that populist strongmen are not necessarily strong. Like ex-President Trump, they may simply create the appearance of strength by appealing to familiar cultural tropes from classical literature or Hollywood movies. Here “strength” proves essentially performative, giving expression to popular frustrations over immigration, middle-class decline, or the overweening influence of “over-educated” elites. It may not even be necessary for the performance of strength to be accompanied by policy and strategic successes. Moreover, the new populist strongman may exhibit signs of pathology, as, say, “bullshit artist,” proving incapable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood, fact and fantasy. Consequently, the logic of exclusion may be facilitated not through genuine strength but instead performativity or pathology. Nevertheless, even though not allied to any genuine strength on the part of the “strongman,” such a logic may ultimately transgress the boundaries of democracy. Indeed, this is evident from the January 6 “Capitol Riot” in the USA, whereby a display of angst and frustration bordered on insurrection. This presents us with an intriguing possibility for the future of populism. Can weakness masquerading as strength accomplish the kind of insurrectionary violence threatening democracy that scholars have typically associated with fascism, but from which they have distinguished populism up to now?